Wally with a Brolly

We continue our series on the best and worst pundits in the business. Of course, it's quite obvious that this list is undoubtedly complied through hugely personal bias. Except sometimes, where we're all in agreement. An obvious case is the case of Monsieur Cocky, also known as Garth Crooks.

Smugness personified.

The world of punditry is filled with ex-players. After all, the argument goes that you can only truly understand the game if you've been involved in it. Football is a game of emotions, and it's true that people who have been through it might be able to relay in a more effective manner what goes on through a player's head. For example, it would be interesting to hear Zidane's take on any head butt happening in the world of football. He's been there, he's seen the red mist (more than once). Perhaps he'd be great at explaining in detail what a player thinks about in a moment like that. Of course, I'm pretty sure that there's no semblance of intelligence going down when players go berserk. You just lose it. But it'd still be interesting to hear it from an ex player. This does not, however, explain or justify our continued exposure to the football cancer that is Roy Keane. Absolutely not. More on him later.

"So Zinedine, what were you thinking at this exact moment?"

As we all relate to football on an emotional level, players do as well, certainly more than we think (especially when 'loyalty' is questioned). So a translation of emotional events on the football pitch by old pros is of course welcome.

But this has generated another myth, which is absolutely prevalent in the world of punditry: the tactical knowledge.

For anyone can understand football on a tactical level. Football can be like chess, and the best managers in the business react or pre-emptively act to ensure their teams have the upper hand. However, in order to understand the tactical matters and evolutions in a game, there is absolutely no need to have been an old pro. A thorough understanding of strategy and football will do. Despite what I often say about them, there are scores of journalists (writing for proper papers) who understand perfectly the shifts in momentum in a game and offer insightful tactical analysis. Some old players do not. Need I direct you to the list of the 10 worst managers I did a while back? I remember people like Alan Shearer, Tony Adams and Paul Ince making their way onto the list. Great players they were. Tactical geniuses they definitely aren't.

This point of view is what led me to consider Garth Crooks.

Garth, you see, was actually a very good pro. He was a good goalscorer for Spurs in the 80s, and faced the horrendous racist abuse from the terraces with dignity and a certain level of cockiness. He was also a great defender of footballers' rights, becoming the first black chairman of the PFA. You can't underestimate that really. For his efforts in fighting racism and services to football, Garth was awarded an OBE in 1999. Apparently (thank you Wikipedia) this was handed to him not only for services to football, but more precisely for punditry.

Garth back in his prime. When he let his football do the talking. Good times.

Now it wouldn't be the first time, and it certainly won't be the last, that the Queen gets it wrong in handing out knighthoods (he's not there yet) and awards. I mean, Jamie Oliver is an MBE. So give me a break. But the fact it was received in part for his performance as a pundit defies belief.

For Garth is an insufferable pundit. Whilst all commentators possess superbly high levels of high-confidence (when will we get an uncertain pundit? Now that would be fun) - just ask Andy Gray - Garth obviously believes in the idea that he knows best due to his past as a pro footballer. With an inimitable 'style' of shouting down everyone in his path and puffing his chest like a Mark Wahlberg-mentioned peacock, Garth does his best to intimidate his colleagues and any person present more knowledgeable than him. I'm not saying Garth is bad guy (he obviously isn't) but his smugness and his inability to listen clearly alienates anyone who watches 'Final Score'. It obviously doesn't help that Garth has to do with dour Steve Claridge as his pal on the horribly boring panel.



It has become unfortunately common to see Garth explain an undoubtedly dodgy 'opinion' and backing it up with pure arrogance. Not only has Garth's analysis been characterised with smugness, but it is also an archetype of lazy punditry. Something which will always stick with me is his statement that Roy Hodgson 'should have a look at James Morrison of West Brom.' No Garth, he shouldn't: James is a full Scottish international with over 20 caps. Seriously pal, do your homework!

It is sad that Crooks is a case in point of the arrogant pundit. But his smugness and laziness undoubtedly make him one of the worst pundits on telly. It unfortunately overshadows his quite considerable past achievements. Perversely, this is probably what frustrates me the most. From all-around good guy and groundbreaker to a joke; it is a sad path Garth Crooks has tread.